The increased presence of speed cameras on our roads is viewed by many as one of the great social evils of modern times. The 6,000 boxes, albeit bright yellow, are nonetheless regarded as sly, their positioning often underhand. The force behind them is excessively Big Brotherly; the motive — moneymaking, no less — is base. Their successes are little more than a form of entrapment, if that. So a big cheer will no doubt be raised at the report today that the merciless takeover of British roadsides by ugly, steel gantries is, as it were, to be curbed. Ministers have sniffed the wind of driver discontent and are developing ways to restore confidence and credibility in the way our roads are policed.

This is good news, although not for the reasons that many may believe. It makes perfect sense — in fact it is well overdue — that proceeds from speeding fines should go towards improving road safety rather than into Gordon Brown’s back pocket. The £20 million that went to the Treasury in 2003-04 could save a lot of lives if poured into reshaping dangerous junctions and ironing out blind spots on fast roads. This would also meet criticism that the 43 camera partnerships, made up of police forces and local authorities, have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies, existing chiefly to expand their budgets rather than to keep a sensible eye on road speed.

Requiring partnerships to consider all other efforts to persuade drivers to cut their speed before resorting to new cameras is also to be welcomed. But it also makes sense to allow partnerships more flexibility in where they place their cameras. A school may want a camera outside its gates, even though there have not been the requisite four serious crashes in the previous three years.

There are other iniquities that deserve to make it on to the statute book. An automatic three-point penalty, even if the offender is only a degree or two over the accepted limit, is unduly harsh. A six-month ban for a driver who has erred at the margins four times in three years is disproportionate. Equally ill-treated is the motorist who goes from a clean licence to a ban during the course of an accident-free but careless drive along the A3. If fines or points increased on a scale, the punishments would carry more respect.

However, the anti-camera brigade should not crow. They are a voluble minority, often enraged at being caught, and they have made a great deal of noise over recent years. Yet it is worth emphasising a few basics. Speed cameras catch people who break the law. Speed limits are not advisory, they are mandatory. Driving is not a right but an earned privilege. The road death toll fell to a record low last year. Being caught speeding by a roadside camera is not the same as being “caught out ”, as if the capture were somehow unjust. Is it “unfair” for an in-store CCTV camera to spy a hand going into the till? Or a high street camera to identify muggers? Rather than listening to speeding drivers curse cameras, a silent majority would rather those drivers kept an eye on the speedometer.